Another Democratic Politician, Sal DiMasi, Breaks Solemn Promise ---
But He Will Undoubtedly Change His Mind

By MassNews Staff††††††††††† Sal DiMasi is now
saying it's too late to call a vote on gay marriage this year because
there are more pressing matters to consider.††††††††††† He claims to regret
the breaking of his solemn promise to have a vote on the Resolution
of Rep. Emile Goguen, which would Remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall
and the three Associate Justices who voted with her on gay marriage.††††††††††† DiMasi knows that
the three Justices who disagreed with Marshall, wrote passionately
that only the Legislature, not the Court, has the power to do what
she wanted. Those three judges said that Marshall is operating a rogue
court.

Speaker Knows
Reps Are Not Behind Him

††††††††††† Speaker DiMasi
knows he doesn't have the Reps behind him. The usual left-wing groups,
led by Arlene Isaacson, attempted to preempt the matter earlier in
the year by pressuring the Reps to give their public support for gay
marriage. Despite a tremendous effort, only 20% agreed to do so. That
means that 80% are ready to vote either way, depending upon what they
hear from the voters. †††††††††††† It's expected
that the Speaker will probably change his mind and allow a vote when
he sees three airplanes from "Mass. Citizens for Marriage"
in formation, circling the skies over Boston and beyond with the following
banner:

SPEAKER DIMASI BREAKS PROMISE --- AIDS GAY MARRIAGE

††††††††††† It's not too late
for the Speaker to call a vote, says the attorney for Mass. Citizens,
J. Edward Pawlick.††††††††††††††††††††† "DiMasi
knows he can take a vote any time he wants. He's trying to hide behind
the smoke screen that 'formal sessions are over' and he is powerless
to do anything about it. But that's not true; he can call a formal
session any day he desires."††††††††††† Atty. Pawlick says
it's sad to see the Speaker going down the same road that led Tom
Birmingham to the dust-heap in 2002, along with Shannon O'Brien.††††††††††† "This is a bi-partisan
disgrace," says Atty. Pawlick. "Although the Democrats have
been the biggest violators of the Constitution by far, there have
been a few Republicans who have joined, notably the Minority Leader
of the Senate, Brian Lees (R-Springfield), who has been very active
in the unfair tactics used in promoting gay marriage. He is the right-hand
man on this issue.††††††††††† "In addition,
Mitt Romney embarrassed his own wife and son in his vain attempts
to straddle the issue as he strives to become President."

How Can Atty.
Pawlick Say DiMasi's Already Broken the Law?

††††††††††† MassNews asked Atty. Pawlick why
he says that the Speaker has already broken the law.††††††††††† "I've written legal briefs
which clearly show that it is inherent in the state Constitution,
which President John Adams wrote for us in 1780 before we had a Federal
Constitution, that the right to Remove oppressive judges cannot be
sent to a committee. We cannot delegate this important duty to 6,
10 or 100 people on a committee. Every Legislator is required to vote
and be counted.†††††††††††† "When
Tom Finneran was Speaker at the beginning of 2004, his lawyer ruled
that the Resolution to Remove Margaret Marshall and her three cohorts
must go directly to the floor of the House, and not be sent to a committee.
After Finneran sent it to a committee, he never looked at me again
and resigned shortly thereafter because he knew he had done wrong.††††††††††† "The Legislature
has sent 'Bills of Address' to various committees in the past, inasmuch
as the power structure, particularly the lawyers, has never liked
John Adamsí idea of allowing oppressive judges to be removed. But
the process of sending a 'Bill of Address' to a committee is nowhere
to be found in the Constitution. This is just another way for powerful
politicians to either delay or kill the entire process and thwart
the will of the voters.††††††††††† "Representative
Goguen (D-Fitchburg) filed his 'Bill of Address' as a Resolution,
but somewhere, someone, back when Speaker Finneran was in charge,
changed it to an ordinary Bill which was submitted to a Committee
which mysteriously killed the measure even though the Committee never officially met.

††††††††††† "Speaker DiMasi has already
violated the state Constitution again in 2005 by sending Goguen's
Resolution to a committee."

Action of
Legislature in 2002 Was Clearly Unconstitutional, According to State
House News Service

††††††††††† It's interesting
to read material from the State House News Service, which explains
the process to be followed for any Amendment to the state Constitution
in 2005, including the one forbidding gay marriage if they get the
required number of signatures.††††††††††† The story from the
News Service indicates what should have occurred in 2002 to the Mass.
Citizens Amendment, known as the "Protection of Marriage Amendment.".
They say:†††††††††††††††††††† "Those
seeking changes in the State Constitution [in 2005] will find their
initiatives placed before a Constitutional Convention, a joint session
of the 200 House and Senate members. Those proposed amendments must
win 50 affirmative convention votes next year and then another 50
in a similar convention of the House and Senate seated for the 2007-2008
session. Then they would be placed on the ballot in the 2008 election."

DiMasi and
Pawlick Both Trial Lawyers

††††††††††† Atty. Pawlick
was a trial lawyer before he founded Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
in 1972 after suddenly becoming the sole parent of his four children,
who were 10, 8, 6 and 4. He could no longer practice law and did not
want a nanny to raise his children. So he raised them himself, at
the same time establishing his new business from his home. He continued
as CEO of the business (even after it grew to 120 employees including
40 lawyers) until he sold it in 1997 and started Massachusetts News.
He's had to become a trial lawyer again while battling the establishment
in Massachusetts since 1977.